www site     

Link to us   
HomeStoreAboutTotal TruthBlogContactDonateSpeakingArchives
pro-existence banner no. 2 black by Rick and Nancy Pearcey.jpg

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Atheist Goes Back to Court

By Rick Pearcey • June 15, 2010, 11:21 PM

Activist atheist Michael Newdow wants a case re-heard as he seeks to remove "So Help Me God" from oaths of office administered to U.S. presidents. 

Nothing in the Constitution, however, including the First Amendment, supports his private views, but Newdow seeks to use the courts as an instrument of oppression to impose them anyway.

Now at this point, let me say that, as a free-thinker, if I thought atheism answered the basic philosophic questions of life in ways that are logically consistent, empirically verifiable, and existentially livable, I too would embrace atheism. But clarity of thought rooted in the real world has not allowed such a conclusion.

The point of the Constitution, in contrast to certain secular myths, is to set up a system of government that protects the liberty embraced in the Declaration of Independence. It emphasizes a freedom that rests squarely upon the concept of a Creator who is the source of "unalienable rights" and the giver of the "blessings of liberty."

Clearly, the Creator is at the heart of the defining mainstream definition of American polity. Equally clearly, deviations from that mainstream are deviations into extremism, measured in extremity by the distance one departs from what truly is the heart of the enduring American mainstream.

Well, you ask, what about the "separation of chruch and state"? OK, what about it? It seems to me that any discussion of the so-called "separation of church and state" that wishes to deal with facts and not with liberal fantasy should begin with locating that phrase in the Constitution or Declaration. But this cannot be done because the phrase is not in there.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'," famously states the data given in that book of verifiable information we have from the Creator. The point is not that the fool is unintelligent but that he is uttering something entirely alien to who he is and to what this cosmos as a creation is.  

And so an educated man can utter foolisheness not just in his heart but also publicly in court. Before Newdow goes back into hallowed chambers whose ultimate authority rests upon divine law (even if some judges work in ignorance of this), it may serve him well to go back first to the Declaration and Constitution. Perhaps it's time to question the liberal propaganda lesson and start thinking freely for oneself. Even if it's the humane, and godly, thing to do.